Income Tax Officer, Jind v. Mis. Mangat Ram Norata Ram Narwana & Anr

Case: INCOME TAX OFFICER, JIND versus MIS. MANGAT RAM NORATA RAM NARWANA & ANR. [[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1137] (2011) (2011) 5 एस0सी0आय0 1137 आमकयअधधकायीजींद फनाभ भैससनयोतायाभनयवानावएकभींगतयाभअन्म (अऩीर 8 वषस 2005) दाण्डडकसींख्मा भई 05 2021 (हरजीतकेआरन्यायमूर्तिस िंहवैदी एविंन्यायमूर्तिचन्रामौऱीप्र ाद) आमकयअधधननमभ 1961: धाया 276(।), 277,278- केआम, वप्रत्मथीसींस्थानववक्रमतथाखातेकी- - सहबागीदायरयटनसअऩनेक्रमफैंकऩृववण्टटमोभेंववसींगनतमाअभबमुक्तद्वायासींशोधधतसेककमागमा-आमका- केआधायऩयअथसदडडआयोवऩत- अथसदडडहस्ताऺयोप्रस्तुतआींकरनआींकरनकाबुगतानककमागमा- धाया 276(।), 277,278 केआधीनसींस्थानवसहबागीदायकोअभबमोण्जतकयतेऩरयवाद- दडडाधधकायीककमागमाऔयतथासहबागीदायऩयहुएसींण्स्थतद्वायाउन्हेदोषभसद्वसींस्थानअथसदडडआयोवऩतकयसहबागीदायकोएकवषसकीकठोयकायावाससेककमागमा- अऩीरीमदण्डडतन्मामारमद्वायासहबागीदायकोदोषभुक्तककमागमा- उच्चन्मामारमद्वायाइसआधायऩयककअभबमोजनइसफातकोप्रभाणणतकयनेभींेसपरनहीयहाहैककरयटनसअभबमुक्तसहबागीदायद्वाया/ ककमागमाथा, केआदेशकोमथावतयखागमा- अऩीरऩयअबीहस्ताऺरयतसत्मावऩतदोषभुण्क्तननधासरयतककमागमाककसहबागीदायनेककसीबीसभममहआऩविनहीरीककरयटनसउसकेउक्तद्वायानहीथाअथवाउसकेदाणखरनहीककमागमा- ककसीबीसभममहहस्ताऺरयतद्वायाअभबमुक्तद्वायाआऩविनभरमाजानाऔयउसकेद्वायाअथसदडडकाबुगतानककएजानेसेअभबमोजनमहप्रभाणणतकयनेसपरयहाहैककमहककमागमाककउसनेरयटनसककमाभींेअभबमुक्तद्वायास्वीकायहस्ताऺरयतगमाऔयककमागमा- सहबागीदायबीमहकहीनहीरामागमाककरयटनसऩयउसकेप्रस्तुतसाक्ष्मभींेहस्ताऺयनहीहैतथाउसनेगरतीसेअथसदडडकाबुगतानकयददमाहै- अऩीरीमन्मामारमनेसाक्ष्मकासहीनकयनेऔयकोकयनेकोगरततयीकेसेननदेभशतककमा- ववश्रेषणअभबमुक्तदोषभुक्तभेंस्वमींउच्चन्मामारमबीइसस्ऩटटत्रुदटकोठीककयनेभेंववपरयहादडडाधधकायीद्वायाऩारयतदोषभसद्वीकेआदेशकोफहारककमागमा- – : - - अवधारयतककमासाक्ष्मसींस्वीकृत साक्ष्मसींस्वीकृनतप्रभाणणतभूल्मगमा: कोईबीसींस्वीकृनतसींस्वीकृनतकतासकेववरूद्वसवोिभसाक्ष्महैऔयइसेऩऺकायकेआचयणसेअनुभाननतककमाजासकताहै-आचयणसेअनुभाननतसींस्वीकृनतउसव्मण्क्तकेववरूद्वभजफूतसाक्ष्महैऩयन्तुवहव्मण्क्तइसफातकाप्रभाणणतकयनेकेभरएस्वतींत्रहैककउक्तसींस्वीकृनतउसकेद्वायागरतीसेकीगमीथीअथवावहथी।असत्म अऩीर: अऩीर 08 वषस 2005 दाण्डडकऺेत्राधधकायदाण्डडकसींख्मा एडडहरयमाणाचडडीगढ 117- एभ0ए0 वषस 2003 उच्चन्मामारमऩींजाफभेंद्वायादाण्डडकप्रकीणससींख्माऩारयतननणसम 24.07.2003 केभेंददनाींककतववरूद्व याजएडवोकेटकुभायगुु्प्ता , ववकास, फी0वी0 फारायाभदास, भौ0 अऩीराथीकेभरएएस0एस0 भुकुरगुप्ताभहयौत्राभन्नान, मशऩारकेभरएखन्डूजाधींगयाप्रत्मथी ननणसमददमागमाहैन्मामारमद्वायाननम्न आदेश वतसभानअऩीरआमकयअधधकायीनेकोककमेजानेकेआदेशसेअभबमुक्तदोषभुक्तऺुब्धहोकयन्मामारमकीअनुभनतसेप्रस्तुतकीहै। अभबमोजनऩऺकेअनुसायप्रत्मथीसींख्मा 1 भींगतयाभनयौतायाभएकसहबागीदारयतासींस्थानहैजोभशीनयी, रोहेकेऩाईऩऔयस्ऩेमयऩाटकेक्रमववक्रमकेकामसभेंयतहै।प्रत्मथीसींख्मा 2 हेभयाजभैससनयौतायाभ (पभसकेककमागमाहै) अभबमुक्तभींगतयाभण्जसेएतद्उऩयान्तरूऩभेंसन्दभबसतकेएकसहबागीदायहैवविीमवषस 1988-89 केभरएआमकयरयटनस 14.07.1988 कोकेण्जन्होनेअधधवक्तासेदाणखरककमाजोसहबागीदायहेभयाजथा।आमकयरयटनसभाध्मभद्वायाहस्ताऺरयतएवींसत्मावऩतªपभसकीआम 1,02,800/- कीगमीथीऔयरयटनसआम, टै, राबहाननखाता, भींेप्रदभशसतभेंडडींगअकाउन्टसहबागीदारयताखाताववविीमवषस 1988-89 ककमेगमेथे।तुरनऩत्रसम्फण्न्धतसींरधगततत्कारीनआमकयअधधकायीद्वायाआमकयअधधननमभकी 143(3) केआधीनभूल्माींकन 1,47,370/- केभरएऩूणसककमागमाहै। इसकेउऩयान्तअभबमोजनकामहकथनहैककववक्रमकयववबागद्वायापभसकेखातेअऩनेकब्जेभेंभरमेगमेण्जनसेउन्हेआमकयववबागद्वायाप्राप्तककमागमाऔयइनकेऩरयशीरनकेआम, , वखातोकीऩामीगमी।धाया 148 उऩयान्तववक्रमक्रमफैंकप्रववण्टटमोभेंववसींगनतमॉतदानुसायआमकयअधधननमभ ( अधधननमभकेककमागमाहै) केआधीनण्जसेएतद्उऩयान्तसम्फन्धभेंसम्फोधधतसूचनाननगसतकयप्रत्मथीगणसेअऩेऺाकीगमीककवह 30 ददवसकीसभमावधधकेबीतयऩुनयीक्षऺतरयटनसदाणखरकयें।प्रत्मथीगणद्वायानोदटसकाअनुऩारननहीककमागमाऔयउसकेउऩयान्तउन्हेअधधननमभकीधाया 142(1) केआधीनसूचनाप्रेवषतकीगईऔयअनन्त्ननधासरयकीसींस्थानद्वायाअऩनाआमकयरयटनस 1,47,870/- कीआमघोवषतकयतेहएुप्रस्तुतककमागमा।अभबमोजनऩऺकामहबीकथनहैककमहरयटनसहेभयाजथाऔयउसीकेककमागमाअभबमुक्तद्वायाहस्ताऺरयतद्वायाप्रस्तुतथासाथआम, खाता, राबहाननखाताकावववयणककमागमाथा।ण्जसकेव्माऩायऩुनयीक्षऺतप्रस्तुतअभबमोजनकेअनुसायमहसफअभबरेखअभबमुक्तहेभयाजद्वायाहस्ताऺरयतथे।अभबरेखोकेऩरयशीरनकेसहामकआमकयखाता 1,28,000/- खातेउऩयान्तआमुक्तद्वायाव्माऩायभेंफैंकभें1,00,000/- औयआमके 19,710/- कीकीगमीऔयआमकाननधासयणअनतरयक्तरूऩभेंवृद्ववकुर3,68,200/- कयअथसदडडकीकयनेकाननदेशददमागमा।प्रकक्रमाप्रायम्ब Case: INCOME TAX OFFICER, JIND versus MIS. MANGAT RAM NORATA RAM NARWANA & ANR. [[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1137] (2011) [2011] 5 S.C.R. 1137 INCOME TAX OFFICER, JIND v. MIS. MANGAT RAM NORATA RAM NARWANA & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2005) MAY 5, 2011 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] A -Income Tax Act, 1961: ss. 276C(i), 277, 278 Discrepancies relating to entries of incom~, sale and C -purchase and bank accounts of respondent-firm Revised -return filed duly signed by the accused-partner Assessment --of income Based on assessment, penalty imposed -Penalty paid Complaint also lodged ulss.276C(i), 277, 278 for prosecution of firm and partner - Magistrate held them D guilty and imposed fine on the firm and the partner and awarded sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment on the --partner Acquittal of partner by appellate court Upheld by High Court on the ground that prosecution was not able to prove that the return was signed/verified by the accused-E partf1er- On appeal, held: At no point of time, the said partner made any objection that the return did not bear his signature or was not filed by him - By not raising any dispute at any point of time and paying the penalty, the prosecution proved his admission of filing and signing the return - Nothing was F brought in evidence of the partner that signature on the return -did not belong to him and the penalty was paid mistakenly The appe/late court misdirected itself in not considering the -evidence in right perspective and acquitting the accused -High Courl also failed to correct the apparent error Order G --of conviction passed by Magistrate restored Evidence Admission. D --Evidence: Admission £videntiary value of Held: Admission is best evidence against the maker and it can be 11~7 H 1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R. A inferred from the conduct of the party - Admission implied by conduct is strong evidence against the maker but he is at liberty to prove that such admission was mistaken or untrue. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2005. 8 From the Judgment & Order dated 24.7.2003 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandighar in Criminal Misc. No. 117-MA of 2003-Appealed Form. c Mukul Gupta, Vikas Malhotra, B.V. Balaram Das, Mohd. Mannan for the Appellant. S.S. Khanduja, Yash Pal Dhingra for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered D ORDER The Income Tax Officer, aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents has preferred this appeal with leave of the Court. · According to the prosecution, respondent no.1 M/s. E Mangat Ram Norata Ram is a partnership firm carrying on the business of sale and purchase of machinery, iron pipes and spare parts. Respondent No. 2 accused Hem Raj happened to be one of its partner. M/s. Mangat Ram Norata Ram F (hereinafter referred to as "the Firm") filed its income tax return for the assessment year 1988-89 on 14th July, 1988 through its counsel, which was signed and verified by Hem Raj, its partner. The income-tax return showed the income of the firm Rs.1,02,800/-. Return was accompanied by statement of G income, trading accounts, profit & loss account, partnership account and balance sheet for the assessment year 1988-89. The assessment was completed by the then Income Tax Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for Rs.1,47,370/-. Further case of the prosecution is that the books of the H INCOME TAX OFFICER, JIND v. MANGAT RAM NORATA RAM NARWANA & ANR. 1139 Case: INCOME TAX OFFICER, JIND versus MIS. MANGAT RAM NORATA RAM NARWANA & ANR. [[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1137] (2011) ਆਮਦਨਕਰਅਧਿਕਾਰੀ, ਜੀਂਦ ਬਨਾਮ ਐਮ/ਐਸ. ਮੰਗਤਰਾਮਨੋਰਤਾਰਾਮਨਰਵਾਨਾ & ਅਨੁ.(ਅਪੀਲਨੰਬਰ 8 ਦਾ 2005)ਕ੍ਰਿਮਿਨਲ ਮਈ 5, 2011 [ਹਰਜੀਤਸਿੰਘਬੇਦੀਅਤੇਚੰਦਰਮੌਲੀ. , ਜੇ.ਜੇ.]ਕ੍ਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦ ਆਮਦਨਕਰਐਕਟ, 1961: ਐਸ.ਐਸ. 276C(i), 277, 278 – -ਫਰਮਦੇਆਮਦਨ, ਵਿਕਰੀਪ੍ਰਤੀਵਾਦੀਅਤੇਖਰੀਦਅਤੇਖਾਤਿਆਂਦੀਆਂਐਟਰੀਆਂਸਬੰਧੀਵਿਸੰਗਤੀਆਂ – -ਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਦੁਆਰਾਦਸਤਖਤਕੀਤਾਬੈਂਕਦੋਸ਼ੀਗਿਆਸੋਧਿਆਗਿਆਰਿਟਰਨਦਾਖਲ – ਆਮਦਨਦਾਮੁਲਾਂਕਣ – ਮੁਲਾਂਕਣਦੇਆਧਾਰ 'ਤੇਲਗਾਇਆਗਿਆਜੁਰਮਾਨਾ – ਜੁਰਮਾਨਾਅਦਾਕੀਤਾਗਿਆ – ਫਰਮਅਤੇਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਦੇਅਭਿਯੋਗਲਈਐਸ.ਐਸ.276C(i), 277, 278 ਅਧੀਨਸ਼ਿਕਾਇਤਵੀਦਰਜਕੀਤੀਗਈ – ਮੈਜਿਸਟ੍ਰੇਟਨੇਉਹਨਾਂਨੂੰਦੋਸ਼ੀਠਹਿਰਾਇਆਅਤੇਫਰਮਅਤੇਭਾਗੀਦਾਰ 'ਤੇਜੁਰਮਾਨਾਲਗਾਇਆਅਤੇਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਨੂੰਇਕਸਾਲਦੀਸਖਤਕੈਦਦੀਸਜ਼ਾਸੁਣਾਈ – ਅਪੀਲੀਅਦਾਲਤਦੁਆਰਾਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਦੀਬਰੀਕਰਨ – ਹਾਈਕੋਰਟਨੇਇਸਆਧਾਰ 'ਤੇਬਰਕਰਾਰਰੱਖਿਆਕਿਅਭਿਯੋਜਨਇਹ'ਤੇ, ਫੈਸਲਾਸਾਬਤ: ਕਿਸੇਨਹੀਂਵੀਕਰਸਮੇਂਸਕਿਆ, ਉਕਤਕਿਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਰਿਟਰਨਨੂੰਨੇਦੋਸ਼ੀਕੋਈ-ਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਵਿਰੋਧਨਹੀਂਨੇਕੀਤਾਦਸਤਖਤਕਿਰਿਟਰਨਕੀਤਾ/ਸਤਿਆਪਿਤ 'ਤੇਉਸਦੇਦਸਤਖਤਕੀਤਾਸੀ – ਨਹੀਂਅਪੀਲਸਨਉਹਉਸਦੁਆਰਾਦਾਖਲਕੀਤਾਗਿਆਸੀ – ਕਿਸੇਵੀਵਿਰੋਧਨਾਕਰਨਅਤੇਜੁਰਮਾਨਾਅਦਾਕਰਨਜਾਂਨਹੀਂਸਮੇਂਨਾਲ, ਅਭਿਯੋਜਨਨੇਉਸਦੇਰਿਟਰਨਦਾਖਲਕਰਨਅਤੇਦਸਤਖਤਕਰਨਦੀਸਵੀਕਾਰੋਕਤੀਸਾਬਤਕੀਤੀ – ਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਦੇਸਬੂਤਵਿੱਚਕੁਝਵੀਲਿਆਂਦਾਗਿਆਕਿਰਿਟਰਨ 'ਤੇਦਸਤਖਤਉਸਦੇਸਨਅਤੇਜੁਰਮਾਨਾਨਹੀਂਨਹੀਂਗਲਤੀਨਾਲਅਦਾਕੀਤਾਗਿਆਸੀ – ਅਪੀਲੀਅਦਾਲਤਨੇਸਹੀਵਿੱਚਵਿਚਾਰਨਵਿੱਚਆਪਣੇਦ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਟੀਕੋਣਸਬੂਤਾਂਨੂੰਆਪਨੂੰਗੁਮਰਾਹਕੀਤਾਅਤੇਦੋਸ਼ੀਨੂੰਬਰੀਕਰਦਿੱਤਾ – ਹਾਈਕੋਰਟਵੀਸਪੱਸ਼ਟਗਲਤੀਨੂੰਸਹੀਕਰਨਵਿੱਚਅਸਫਲਰਹੀ – ਦੁਆਰਾਪਾਸਕੀਤੇਗਏਠਹਿਰਾਉਣਦੇਨੂੰਬਹਾਲਕੀਤਾਗਿਆ – ਸਬੂਤ – ਮੈਜਿਸਟ੍ਰੇਟਦੋਸ਼ੀਆਦੇਸ਼ਸਵੀਕਾਰੋਕਤੀ. ਸਬੂਤ: ਸਵੀਕਾਰੋਕਤੀ – ਇਸਦੀਸਾਖੀਮੁੱਲ – ਫੈਸਲਾ: ਸਵੀਕਾਰੋਕਤੀਬਣਾਉਣਵਾਲੇਖਿਲਾਫਸਭਵਧੀਆਸਬੂਤਤੋਂਹੈਅਤੇਇਹਹੋਸਕਦਾਹੈ। ਪਾਰਟੀਦੇਵਿਵਹਾਰਸਮਝਿਆਗਿਆ -- ਵਿਵਹਾਰਦੁਆਰਾਸੰਕੇਤਿਤਸਵੀਕਾਰਨਿਰਮਾਤਾਖਿਲਾਫਤੋਂਮਜ਼ਬੂਤਸਬੂਤਹੈਪਰਉਸਨੂੰਇਹਸਾਬਤਕਰਨਦੀਆਜ਼ਾਦੀਹੈਕਿਅਜਿਹਾਸਵੀਕਾਰਗਲਤਜਾਂਅਸੱਚਾਸੀ। ਅਪੀਲੇਟ: ਅਪੀਲਨੰਬਰ 8 ਦਾ 2005।ਕ੍ਰਿਮੀਨਲਜੁਰਿਸਡਿਕਸ਼ਨਕ੍ਰਿਮੀਨਲ ਵਿੱਚਪੰਜਾਬਅਤੇਹਰਿਆਣਾਦੀਅਦਾਲਤਦੇ 24.7.2003 ਦੇਫੈਸਲੇਅਤੇਦੀਤਾਰੀਖਵਿੱਚਚੰਡੀਗੜ੍ਹਉੱਚਆਦੇਸ਼ਮਿਸਕ. ਨੰਬਰ 117-ਐਮ.ਏ. ਦਾ 2003-ਅਪੀਲਿਤਫਾਰਮ।ਕ੍ਰਿਮੀਨਲ ਮੁਕੁਲਗੁਪਤਾ, ਵਿਕਾਸਮਲਹੋਤਰਾ, ਬੀ.ਵੀ. ਬਲਰਾਮਦਾਸ, ਮੋਹਦ. ਮੰਨਨਅਪੀਲਕਰਤਾਲਈ। ਐਸ.ਐਸ. ਖੰਡੂਜਾ, ਯਸ਼ਪਾਲਧੀਂਗਰਾਜਵਾਬਦੇਹਾਂਲਈ। ਅਦਾਲਤਦਾਨਿਮਨਲਿਖਤਆਦੇਸ਼ਦਿੱਤਾਗਿਆਸੀ ਆਰਡੀਆਰ ਆਮਦਨਕਰਅਧਿਕਾਰੀ, ਜਵਾਬਦੇਹਾਂਦੀਬਰੀਕਰਨਤੋਂਦੁਖੀਹੋਕੇ, ਅਦਾਲਤਦੀਛੁੱਟੀਨਾਲਇਸਅਪੀਲਨੂੰਪਸੰਦਕੀਤਾਹੈ। ਅਭਿਯੋਗਅਨੁਸਾਰ, ਜਵਾਬਦੇਹਨੰਬਰ 1 . ਮੰਗਤਰਾਮਨੋਰਤਾਰਾਮਇੱਕਸਾਝੇਦਾਰੀਫਰਮਹੈਜੋਮੈਸਰਜ਼, ਲੋਹੇਦੀਆਂਅਤੇਸਪੇਅਰਪਾਰਟਸਦੀਖਰੀਦਅਤੇਵਿਕਰੀਦਾਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਕਰਰਹੀਹੈ।ਜਵਾਬਦੇਹਮਸ਼ੀਨਰੀਪਾਈਪਾਂਨੰਬਰ 2 ਹੇਮਰਾਜਇਸਦਾਇੱਕਸਾਝੇਦਾਰਸੀ।. ਮੰਗਤਰਾਮਨੋਰਤਾਰਾਮ (ਇਥੇਅਗੇ "ਫਰਮ" ਕਹਿਣਦੋਸ਼ੀਮੈਸਰਜ਼ਜਾਰਹੇਹਨ) ਨੇਆਪਣਾਆਮਦਨਕਰਰਿਟਰਨਆਸੇਸਮੈਂਟਸਾਲ 1988-89 ਲਈ 14ਵੀਂਜੁਲਾਈ, 1988 ਨੂੰਆਪਣੇਵਕੀਲਦਾਖਲਕੀਤਾ, ਜੋਕਿਹੇਮਰਾਜ, ਇਸਦੇਸਾਝੇਦਾਰਦੁਆਰਾਦਸਤਖਤਅਤੇਸਤਿਆਪਿਤਕੀਤਾਗਿਆਰਾਹੀਂਸੀ।ਆਮਦਨਕਰਰਿਟਰਨਨੇਫਰਮਦੀਆਮਦਨਰੁਪਏ 1,02,800/- ਦਿਖਾਈ।ਰਿਟਰਨਨਾਲਆਮਦਨਦਾਬਿਆਨ, ਟਰੇਡਿੰਗਖਾਤੇ, ਲਾਭਅਤੇਘਾਟੇਦਾਖਾਤਾ, ਸਾਝੇਦਾਰੀਖਾਤਾਅਤੇਸਾਲ 1988-89 ਬੈਲੈਂਸਸ਼ੀਟਆਸੇਸਮੈਂਟਲਈਸਾਥਸੀ।ਤਤਕਾਲੀਨਆਮਦਨਕਰਅਧਿਕਾਰੀਨੇਆਮਦਨਕਰਐਕਟਦੀਧਾਰਾ 143(3) ਅਧੀਨਆਸੇਸਮੈਂਟਰੁਪਏ 1,47,370/- ਲਈਪੂਰਾਕੀਤਾ। ਅਭਿਯੋਗਦਾਹੋਰਕੇਸਇਹਹੈਕਿਫਰਮਦੀਆਂਦੇਖਾਤੇਟੈਕਸਵਿਭਾਗਦੁਆਰਾਵਿੱਚਕਿਤਾਬਾਂਸੇਲਜ਼ਕਬਜ਼ੇਲਏਗਏਸਨ, ਜੋਕਿਆਮਦਨਕਰਵਿਭਾਗਦੁਆਰਾਕੀਤੇਗਏਸਨਅਤੇਇਸਦੀਪੜਚੋਲਆਮਦਨ, ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤਉੱਤੇਵਿਕਰੀਅਤੇਖਰੀਦ, ਬੈਂਕਖਾਤਾਆਦਿਦੀਆਂਐਟਰੀਆਂਵਿੱਚਵਿਸੰਗਤੀਆਂਨੂੰਨੋਟਕੀਤਾਗਿਆਸੀਅਤੇਇਸਅਨੁਸਾਰਆਮਦਨਕਰਐਕਟਦੀਧਾਰਾ 148 ਅਧੀਨਇੱਕਨੋਟਿਸਜਾਰੀਕੀਤੀਗਈਜਿਸਨੇਜਵਾਬਦੇਹਾਂਨੂੰ 30 ਦਿਨਾਂਵਿੱਚਇੱਕਸੋਧਿਤਰਿਟਰਨਪੇਸ਼ਕਰਨਲਈਕਿਹਾ।ਜਵਾਬਦੇਹਾਂਨੇਨੋਟਿਸਦੀਪਾਲਣਾਨਹੀਂਕੀਤੀਅਤੇਉਸਤੋਂਬਾਅਦਐਕਟਦੀਧਾਰਾ 142(1) ਅਧੀਨਨੋਟਿਸਜਾਰੀਕੀਤੀਗਈਅਤੇਅਸੈਸੀਫਰਮਨੇਅਂਤਤਃਆਪਣਾਆਮਦਨਕਰਰਿਟਰਨਆਪਣੀਆਮਦਨਰੁਪਏ 1,47,870/- ਦੱਸਦਿਆਂਦਾਖਲਕੀਤਾ।ਅਭਿਯੋਗਨੇਦੋਸ਼ਲਗਾਇਆਕਿਇਹਰਿਟਰਨਹੇਮਰਾਜਦੁਆਰਾਠੀਕਦਸਤਖਤਅਤੇਕੀਤਾਗਿਆਸੀ, ਜੋਕਿਸੋਧਿਤਆਮਦਨਦਾਦੋਸ਼ੀਤਰ੍ਹਾਂਪੇਸ਼ਬਿਆਨ, ਟਰੇਡਿੰਗਖਾਤਾਅਤੇਲਾਭਅਤੇਘਾਟੇਦਾਖਾਤਾਨਾਲਸਾਥਸੀ।ਇਹਸਾਰੇ, ਅਭਿਯੋਗਅਨੁਸਾਰ, ਦਸਤਾਵੇਜ਼ਹੇਮਰਾਜਦੁਆਰਾਵੀਦਸਤਖਤਕੀਤੇਗਏਸਨ।ਇਸਦੀਵਿਚਾਰਧਾਰਾ, ਆਮਦਨਕਰਦੇਸਹਾਇਕਦੋਸ਼ੀਉੱਤੇਨੇਟਰੇਡਿੰਗਖਾਤੇਵਿੱਚਰੁਪਏ 1,28,000/-, ਖਾਤੇਵਿੱਚਰੁਪਏ 1,10,000/- ਅਤੇਵਾਧੂਆਮਦਨਕਮਿਸ਼ਨਰਬੈਂਕਵਜੋਂਰੁਪਏ 19,710/- ਦਾਜੋੜਕੀਤਾਅਤੇਕੁੱਲਆਮਦਨਨੂੰਰੁਪਏ 3,68,200/- ਤੱਕਮੁੱਲਾਂਕਣਕੀਤਾਅਤੇਜੁਰਮਾਨਾਕਾਰਵਾਈਸ਼ੁਰੂਕਰਨਦੇਨਿਰਦੇਸ਼ਦਿੱਤੇ। ਅੰਤਤਃ, ਐਕਟਦੀਧਾਰਾ 271(1)(c) ਅਧੀਨਘੱਟੋ-ਘੱਟਜੁਰਮਾਨਾਰੁ. 1,24,950/- ਲਗਾਇਆਗਿਆਅਤੇਹੋਰਇੱਕਰਕਮਰੁ.7890/- ਅਤੇਰੁ.12,680/- ਧਾਰਾ 271(1)(a) ਅਧੀਨਲਗਾਈਗਈ।ਜਵਾਬਦੇਣਵਾਲੀਫਰਮਨੇਜੁਰਮਾਨੇਦੇਲਗਾਉਣਵਿਰੁੱਧਅਪੀਲਦਾਇਰਕੀਤੀਜਿਸਨੂੰਆਮਦਨਕਰਕਮਿਸ਼ਨਰ (ਅਪੀਲਾਂ) ਨੇਰੱਦਕਰਦਿੱਤਾ।ਜਵਾਬਦੇਣਵਾਲਿਆਂਨੇਫਰਮਉੱਤੇਲਗਾਏਗਏਜੁਰਮਾਨੇਦੀਅਦਾਇਗੀਕੀਤੀ। ਜਵਾਬਦੇਣਵਾਲਿਆਂਦੀਲਈਧਾਰਾ 276C (i), 277 ਅਤੇ 278 ਅਧੀਨਇੱਕਵੀਪ੍ਰੋਸੀਕਿਊਸ਼ਨਸ਼ਿਕਾਇਤਦਰਜਕੀਤੀਗਈ।ਟ੍ਰਾਇਲਕੋਰਟਨੇਸਬੂਤਾਂਦੀਪੜਚੋਲਕਰਨਉਪਰੰਤਦੋਵੇਂਜਵਾਬਦੇਣਵਾਲਿਆਂਨੂੰਦੋਸ਼ੀਠਹਿਰਾਇਆਅਤੇਧਾਰਾ 276C(1), 277 ਅਤੇ 278 ਅਧੀਨਜਵਾਬਦੇਣਵਾਲੇਨੰਬਰ 1, ਫਰਮ, ਨੂੰਪ੍ਰਤੀਰੁ.1000/- ਦਾਜੁਰਮਾਨਾਲਗਾਇਆ, ਜਦਕਿਜਵਾਬਦੇਣਵਾਲੇਨੰਬਰ 2 ਨੂੰਇੱਕਸਾਲਦੀਸਖਤਕੈਦਅਤੇਹਰਗਿਣਤੀਉੱਤੇਰੁ.1,000/- ਦਾਜੁਰਮਾਨਾਭਰਨਲਈਸੁਣਾਈਗਈਅਤੇਨਾਕਾਮਹੋਣਤਿੰਨਮਹੀਨੇਦੀਸਾਦੀਕੈਦਭੁਗਤਣਸਜ਼ਾਉੱਤੇਲਈ। Case: INCOME TAX OFFICER, JIND versus MIS. MANGAT RAM NORATA RAM NARWANA & ANR. [[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1137] (2011) अधधननमभकीधाया 271(1)(सी) केआधीन 1,24,950/- काअथसदडडआयोवऩतअनन्त्न्मूनतभककमागमाऔयसाथहीसाथअधधननमभकीधाया 271(1)(ए) केआधीन 7890/- औय 12,680/- आयोवऩतककमे।पभसअथसदडडआयोवऩतककमेजानेकेअऩीरकीगमीजोआमकयप्रत्मथीद्वायाववरूद्वप्रस्तुतआमुक्त (अऩीर) द्वायाननयस्तकीगमी।प्रत्मथीगणद्वायापभसऩयआयोवऩतअथसदडडकाबुगतानकयददमागमा। याजएडवोकेटकुभायगुु्प्ता काअभबमोजनकयनेकेभरएअधधननमभकीधाया 276सी (1), 277 व 278 केप्रत्मथीआधीनऩरयवादबीककमागमा।ववचायणकाकयनेकेसींण्स्थतन्मामारमद्वायासाक्ष्मववश्रेषणउऩयान्तदोनोकोदोषीऩामागमाऔयअधधननमभकीधाया 276सी (1), 277 व 278 भसेकेप्रत्मथीगणेींप्रत्मेकआधीन 1 ऩय 1,000/- काअथसदडडआयोवऩतककमागमाजफकक 2 कोएकप्रत्मथीसींख्माप्रत्मथीसींख्मावषसकेकठोयकायावासवधायाके 1,000/- केअथसदडडसेआयेावऩतककमागमा।अथसदडडप्रत्मेकअन्तगसतकाबुगताननककमेजानेऩयतीनभाहकेसाधायणकायावाससेदण्डडतककमागमा। वदडडसेहोकयअऩीरकीगमीऔयअऩीरीमदोषभसद्वीऺुब्धप्रत्मथीगणद्वायाप्रस्तुतन्मामारमनेदोषभसद्वीएवींदडडकाआदेशइसआधायऩयअऩास्तकयददमाककअभबमोजनकेभरएववधधनहीहै।अऩीरीममहबीननटकषसददमागमाककअभबमोजनप्रदिस्वीकृनतसम्भतन्मामारमद्वायामहप्रभाणणतकयनेभेंअसपरयहाहैककप्रस्तुतरयटनसऩयप्रत्मथीसींख्मा 2 केहस्ताऺयहैऔयइसकायणबीकाआदेशसहीनहीहै।कोककएजानेकेआदेशसेहोकयदोषभसद्वीप्रत्मथीगणदोषभुक्तऺुब्धआमकयअधधकायीकेसभऺअऩीरकीगमीऔयननणसमकेद्वायाउच्चन्मामारमसींण्स्थतआरोच्मसेनेअऩीरीमकाकाआदेशमथावतयखा।भाध्मभउच्चन्मामारमन्मामारमदोषभुण्क्तमद्मवऩअऩीरीमननटकषसददमागमाककअभबमोजनकेभरएवैधथीन्मामारमद्वायाप्रदिस्वीकृनतऩयन्तुदोषभुण्क्तकाआदेशइसआधायऩयमथावतयखागमाककअभबमोजनमहप्रभाणणतकयनेभेंअसपरयहाहैककरयटनसप्रत्मथीसींख्मा 2 द्वायाहस्ताऺरयत/सत्मावऩतककमागमाथा।उच्चन्मामारमद्वायाइसदीगमीहै:- सम्फन्धभेंदटप्ऩणीननम्नानुसाय ‘‘उक्तननणसमभींेअभबमोजनकीस्वीकृनतऔयइससम्फन्धभेंअभबमुक्तकोप्रदानककएजानेवारासुनवाईकाअवसयऩयवववादककएबफना, वस्तुण्स्थनतमहयहतीहैककइसफातकेऩमासप्तप्रभाणनहीहैककरयटनसहेभयाज/ था।गोमर (ऩी0-2), अधधकायीद्वायाहस्ताऺरयतसत्मावऩतदेशफन्धूडब्रूण्जसननधासयणककमागमा, केकथनमहफातआमीहैककरयटनसउसकेसभऺ/ द्वायाअण्न्तभभेंहस्ताऺरयतसत्मावऩतनहीककमागमाहै।इसकेअनतरयक्तबीअन्मसाऺीगण, मथासतीशकुभायमू0डी0सी0 (ऩी0डब्रू-1), जे0के0 सहानी (ऩी0डब्रू-3) वसतीशरथुया (ऩी0डब्रू-4) द्वायाहेभयाजकेहस्ताऺयोकोनहीककमागमाहै।अभबमोजनऩऺकामहकेसथाककरयटनसकोककमागमाऔयउसेप्रभाणणतऩुनयीक्षऺतककमागमातथारयटनससहबागीदायगणआमकयअधधकायीकेसभऺअधधवक्ताद्वायाप्रस्तुतद्वायाहस्ताऺरयतनहीककमागमा।इसकायणववद्वानअऩयसत्रन्मामाधीशद्वायामहननटकषसददमागमाककइसफातकोप्रभाणणतनहीककमागमाहैककरयटनसहेभयाजद्वायाहस्ताऺरयत/सत्मावऩतककमागमारयटनसककमागमाउसेनहीककमागमाहैऔयक्मोककण्जसअधधवक्ताद्वायाप्रस्तुतऩरयक्षऺतमद्मवऩरयटनसऩयहेभयाजकानाभअींककतहैऩयन्तुइसफातकाकोईसाक्ष्मनहीहैककरयटनसहेभयाजद्वायाहै।अभबमोजनववशेषकाबीकयासकताथाउसकेऐसानहीहस्ताऺरयतहस्तरेखसाक्ष्मऩयन्तुद्वायाककमागमा।इनकायणोसेअऩीरीमन्मामारमद्वायाअऩीरस्वीकायकयतेहुएप्रत्मथीगणकोदोषभुक्तककमागमा।अऩीरीमएकननणसमभरमागमाजोककसीबीसेन्मामारमद्वायाप्रशींसनीमदृण्टटकोणववकृतअथवाअवैधाननकनहीहै।इनऩरयण्स्थनतमोभेंअऩीरीमन्मामारमकेननणसमभींेहस्ताऺेऩकयनेकाकोईआधायनहीहै।’’ अऩीराथीकीओयसेअधधवक्ताहुएववद्वानवरयटठअधधवक्ताश्रीभुकुरगुप्ताद्वायाअनुयोधककमागमाककनेआदेशककमाहैऔयआमकयअधधकायीकेआदेशऩयरयटनसदाणखरअभबमुक्तआभींबत्रत याजएडवोकेटकुभायगुु्प्ता ककमाहैतथाआमकयअधधकायीकेआदेशसेहोकयअऩीरकीहै।उनकेअऩीरीमव्मधथतप्रस्तुतअनुसायअधधकायीद्वायाअऩीरननयस्तककमेजानेकेउऩयान्तअभबमुक्तद्वायाअथसदडडकाबुगतानकयददमागमाहैऔयइनतथ्मोकोअभबमोजनद्वायाप्रस्तुतसाक्ष्मसेप्रभाणणतककमागमाहै।इनऩरयण्स्थनतमोभेंमहअभबमुक्तकाउियदानमत्वथाककवहइसफातकोप्रभाणणतकयेककआमकयरयटनसऩयउसकेनहीहै।हस्ताऺय एस0एस0 , केककमागमाककश्रीखींडूजाप्रत्मथीगणववद्वानअधधवक्ताद्वायाअनुयोधअभबमुक्तकाअभबमोजनककमेजानेकीअभबमोजनसेकोण्स्थनतभेंसम्फण्न्धतसभस्तअन्तननसदहततथ्मोकयनेकाबायअभबमोजनऩयहोताहैऔयअभबमोजनकोहीमहकयनाहोताहैककप्रभाणणतप्रभाणणतऐसाकामसककमागमाहैकायणवहकाबागीदायहैऔयअभबमुक्तद्वायाण्जनकेदाण्डडकप्रावधानोक्मोककअभबमोजनऩऺमहनहीककमागमाहैककहेभयाजकेहैद्वायाप्रभाणणतअभबमुक्तहस्ताऺयअतएवींवतसभानअऩीरभेंदोषभुण्क्तकेआदेशऩयहस्ताऺेऩककमेजानेकाकोईकायणनहीहै। हभनेऩऺकायोकेओयसेकथनोऩयभननककमा।प्रस्तुतध्मानऩूवसक Case: INCOME TAX OFFICER, JIND versus MIS. MANGAT RAM NORATA RAM NARWANA & ANR. [[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1137] (2011) Further case of the prosecution is that the books of the H INCOME TAX OFFICER, JIND v. MANGAT RAM NORATA RAM NARWANA & ANR. 1139 accounts of the firm were taken. into possession by the Sales Tax Department, which were obtained by the Income Tax Department and on its perusal discrepancies relating to entries of income, sale and purchase, bank account etc. were noticed and accordingly a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued requiring the respondents to furnish a revised return within 30 days. The respondents did not comply with the notice and thereafter notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued and the assessee firm ultimately filed its income tax return declaring its income of Rs.1,47,870/-. The prosecution has alleged that this return was duly signed and furnished by accused Hem Raj, which was accompanied by revised statement of income, trading account and profit and loss account. All these documents, according to the prosecution were also signed by accused Hem Raj. On consideration of the same, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax made addition of Rs.1,28,000/-with trading account, Rs.1, 10,000/- in bank account and Rs.19, 710/- as additional income and assessed the total income to Rs.3,68,200/- and directed for initiating penalty proceedings. Ultimately, the minimum penalty of Rs.1,24,950/- was imposed under Section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and further a sum of Rs.7890/- and Rs.12,680/- under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act. The respondent firm filed appeal against the imposition of penalty which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The respondents had paid the penalty inflicted on the firm. A complaint was also lodged for prosecution of respondents under Section 276C (i), 277 and 278 of the Act. The trial court on appraisal of the evidence held both the respondents guilty and awarded a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 276C(1 ), 277 and 278 of the Act to respondent no.1, the firm, whereas, respondent no.2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of A B C D E F G H A Rs.1,000/- on each count and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Respondents aggrieved by their conviction and sentence preferred appeal and the Appellate Court set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that sanction for 8 prosecution was not valid. The Appellate Court further held that the prosecution has not been able to prove the signature of respondent no.2 in the return filed, and hence, the conviction is bad on that ground also. The Income Tax Officer aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents preferred appeal and the C High Court by its impugned judgment upheld the order of the acquittal and while doing so observed that the sanction is valid but maintained the order of acquittal on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the return was signed/verified by respondent no.2. The observation of the High 0 Court in that regard reads as follows: Case: INCOME TAX OFFICER, JIND versus MIS. MANGAT RAM NORATA RAM NARWANA & ANR. [[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1137] (2011) ਜਵਾਬਦੇਣਵਾਲਿਆਂਦੀਲਈਧਾਰਾ 276C (i), 277 ਅਤੇ 278 ਅਧੀਨਇੱਕਵੀਪ੍ਰੋਸੀਕਿਊਸ਼ਨਸ਼ਿਕਾਇਤਦਰਜਕੀਤੀਗਈ।ਟ੍ਰਾਇਲਕੋਰਟਨੇਸਬੂਤਾਂਦੀਪੜਚੋਲਕਰਨਉਪਰੰਤਦੋਵੇਂਜਵਾਬਦੇਣਵਾਲਿਆਂਨੂੰਦੋਸ਼ੀਠਹਿਰਾਇਆਅਤੇਧਾਰਾ 276C(1), 277 ਅਤੇ 278 ਅਧੀਨਜਵਾਬਦੇਣਵਾਲੇਨੰਬਰ 1, ਫਰਮ, ਨੂੰਪ੍ਰਤੀਰੁ.1000/- ਦਾਜੁਰਮਾਨਾਲਗਾਇਆ, ਜਦਕਿਜਵਾਬਦੇਣਵਾਲੇਨੰਬਰ 2 ਨੂੰਇੱਕਸਾਲਦੀਸਖਤਕੈਦਅਤੇਹਰਗਿਣਤੀਉੱਤੇਰੁ.1,000/- ਦਾਜੁਰਮਾਨਾਭਰਨਲਈਸੁਣਾਈਗਈਅਤੇਨਾਕਾਮਹੋਣਤਿੰਨਮਹੀਨੇਦੀਸਾਦੀਕੈਦਭੁਗਤਣਸਜ਼ਾਉੱਤੇਲਈ। “ਉਪਰੋਕਤਫੈਸਲੇਦੇਬਾਵਜੂਦਜੋਮਨਜ਼ੂਰੀਦੇਣਅਤੇਦੋਸ਼ੀਨੂੰਸੁਣਵਾਈਦੀਲੋੜਬਾਰੇਹੈ, ਇਹਗੱਲਬਣੀਰਹਿੰਦੀਹੈਕਿਇਹਸਬੂਤਨਾਕਾਫ਼ੀਸੀਕਿਰਿਟਰਨਨੂੰਹੇਮਰਾਜਨੇਸਾਈਨ/ਪੁਸ਼ਟੀਕੀਤੀਸੀ।ਦੇਸ਼ਬੰਧੁਗੋਇਲ(ਪੀ.ਡਬਲਿਊ 2), ਅਧਿਕਾਰੀਜਿਸਨੇਅੰਤਿਮਮੁਲਾਂਕਣਕੀਤਾ, ਦਾਬਿਆਨਇਸਪ੍ਰਭਾਵਦਾਸੀਕਿਰਿਟਰਨਉਸਦੀਵਿੱਚਸਾਈਨ/ਕੀਤੀਗਈਸੀ।ਇਸਇਲਾਵਾ, ਹੋਰਕਿਕੁਮਾਰ, ਯੂ.ਡੀ.ਸੀਹਾਜ਼ਰੀਪੁਸ਼ਟੀਨਹੀਂਤੋਂਗਵਾਹਾਂਜਿਵੇਂਸਤੀਸ਼(ਪੀ.ਡਬਲਿਊ 1), ਜੇ.ਕੇ.ਸਾਹਨੀ (ਪੀ.ਡਬਲਿਊ 3) ਅਤੇਸਤੀਸ਼ਲੁਥਰਾ (ਪੀ.ਡਬਲਿਊ 4) ਨੇਹੇਮਰਾਜਦੇਦਸਤਖਤ ਸਾਬਤਨਹੀਂਕੀਤੇ।ਅਭਿਯੋਗਦਾਕੇਸਸੀਕਿਰਿਟਰਨਨੂੰਸੋਧਿਆਗਿਆਸੀਅਤੇਇੱਕਵਕੀਲਰਾਹੀਂਜਮ੍ਹਾਕੀਤਾਗਿਆਸੀਅਤੇਰਿਟਰਨਕਦੇਵੀਆਮਦਨਕਰਅਧਿਕਾਰੀਦੀਵਿੱਚਦੁਆਰਾਸਾਈਨਕੀਤੇਹਾਜ਼ਰੀਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਾਂਨਹੀਂਗਏਸਨ।ਇਸਲਈ, ਸਿੱਖਿਆਜੱਜਨੇਫੈਸਲਾਕੀਤਾਕਿਇਹਸਾਬਤਹੋਇਆਕਿਪ੍ਰਾਪਤਐਡੀਸ਼ਨਲਸੈਸ਼ਨਜ਼ਨਹੀਂਰਿਟਰਨਨੂੰਹੇਮਰਾਜਨੇਸਾਈਨ/ਪੁਸ਼ਟੀਕੀਤੀਸੀਕਿਉਂਕਿਜਿਸਵਕੀਲਨੇਰਿਟਰਨਦਾਖਲਕੀਤਾਸੀਉਸਨੂੰਗਿਆਸੀਅਤੇਇਹਸਬੂਤਸੀਕਿਇਹਹੇਮਰਾਜਹੀਸੀਜਿਸਨੇਰਿਟਰਨਤੇਦਸਤਖਤਕੀਤੇਜਾਂਚਿਆਨਹੀਂਨਹੀਂਸਨਭਾਵੇਂਕਿਰਿਟਰਨਤੇਹੇਮਰਾਜਦਾਨਾਮਮੌਜੂਦਸੀ।ਅਭਿਯੋਗਇੱਕਹੱਥਦੀਜਾਂਚਕਰਵਾਸਕਦਾਸੀ।ਲਿਖਣਵਿੱਚਮਾਹਰਪਰਅਸਫਲਰਿਹਾ।ਇਨ੍ਹਾਂਸਾਰੇਕਾਰਨਾਂਕਰਕੇਸਿੱਖਿਆਪ੍ਰਾਪਤਅਪੀਲੀਅਦਾਲਤਨੇਅਪੀਲਨੂੰਮਨਜ਼ੂਰਕੀਤਾਅਤੇਜਵਾਬਦੇਹਾਂਦੀਬਰੀਕਰਨਨੂੰਸਵੀਕਾਰਕੀਤਾ।ਅਪੀਲੀਅਦਾਲਤਨੇਇੱਕਸੰਭਵਿਕਦ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਟੀਕੋਣਅਪਣਾਇਆ।ਇਹਨਾਤਾਂਵਿਕ੃ਤਸੀਅਤੇਨਾਹੀਗੈਰ-ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ।ਅਪੀਲੀਅਦਾਲਤਦੇਫੈਸਲੇਵਿੱਚਦਖਲਦੇਣਲਈਕੋਈਆਧਾਰਮੌਜੂਦਨਹੀਂਹੈ। ਮਿਸਟਰਮੁਕੁਲਗੁਪਤਾ, ਅਪੀਲਕਰਤਾਦੀਪੇਸ਼ਹੋਏਸੀਨੀਅਰਨੇਦਾਅਵਾਕੀਤਾਕਿਦੋਸ਼ੀਨੇਤਰਫੋਂਕੌਂਸਲਆਮਦਨਕਰਅਥਾਰਟੀਦੇਆਦੇਸ਼ਨੂੰਸੱਦਾਦਿੱਤਾਅਤੇਆਮਦਨਕਰਅਧਿਕਾਰੀਦੇਆਦੇਸ਼ਤੋਂਦੁੱਖੀਹੋਕੇਅਪੀਲਦਾਇਰਕੀਤੀ।ਉਸਦੇਅਨੁਸਾਰਅਪੀਲੀਅਥਾਰਟੀਦੁਆਰਾਅਪੀਲਦੀਖਾਰਜੀਬਾਅਦ, ਦੋਸ਼ੀਨੇਜੁਰਮਾਨਾਅਦਾਤੋਂਕੀਤਾਅਤੇਇਹਤੱਥਅਭਿਯੋਗਦੁਆਰਾਪੇਸ਼ਨਾਲਸਾਬਤਹੋਗਏਸਨਕਿਆਮਦਨਕਰਰਿਟਰਨਤੇਸਬੂਤਾਂਦਸਤਖਤਉਸਦੇਨਹੀਂਸਨ। ਮਿਸਟਰਐਸ.ਐਸ.ਖੰਡੂਜਾ, ਜਵਾਬਦੇਹਦੀਤਰਫੋਂਪੇਸ਼ਹੋਏਵਕੀਲਨੇਦਾਅਵਾਕੀਤਾਕਿਕਿਸੇਦੋਸ਼ੀਦੇਅਭਿਯੋਗਵਿੱਚਹਮੇਸ਼ਾਅਭਿਯੋਗਉੱਤੇਹੀਸਾਰੇਤੱਥਾਂਨੂੰਸਾਬਤਕਰਨਦਾਭਾਰਹੁੰਦਾਹੈਤਾਂਜੋਕਾਰਵਾਈਨੂੰਦੰਡਨੀਯਪ੍ਰਾਵਧਾਨਦੇਅੰਦਰਲਿਆਂਦਾਜਾਸਕੇਅਤੇਅਭਿਯੋਗਨੇਇਹਸਾਬਤਨਹੀਂਕੀਤਾਕਿਦਸਤਖਤਦੋਸ਼ੀਹੇਮਰਾਜਦੇਹਨ, ਇਸਲਈਬਰੀਕਰਨਦੇਆਦੇਸ਼ਨੂੰਇਸਅਦਾਲਤਵਿੱਚਮੌਜੂਦਾਅਪੀਲਵਿੱਚਦਖਲਦੇਣਦੀਲੋੜਨਹੀਂਹੈ। ਅਸੀਂਪੇਸ਼ਕੀਤੇਗਏਸੁਝਾਅਾਂਉੱਤੇਗੌਰਕੀਤਾਹੈ। ਸੱਚਇਹਹੈਕਿਪੀਡਬਲਿਊ 2 ਦੇਸ਼ਬੰਧੂਗੋਇਲ, ਜਿਸਨੇਅੰਤਿਮਮੁਲਾਂਕਣਕੀਤਾਸੀ, ਨੇਆਪਣੀਗਵਾਹੀਵਿੱਚਇਹਨਹੀਂਦੱਸਿਆਕਿਰਿਟਰਨਨੂੰਦੋਸ਼ੀਹੇਮਰਾਜਦੀਹਾਜ਼ਰੀਵਿੱਚਸਾਈਨਜਾਂਪੁਸ਼ਟੀਕੀਤੀਗਈਸੀ।ਹੋਰਗਵਾਹਾਂ; ਜਿਵੇਂਕਿਸਤੀਸ਼ਕੁਮਾਰ (ਪੀਡਬਲਿਊ1), ਜੇ.ਕੇ.ਸਾਹਨੀ (ਪੀਡਬਲਿਊ 3) ਅਤੇਸਤੀਸ਼ਲੁਥਰਾ (ਪੀਡਬਲਿਊ 4) ਨੇਹੇਮਰਾਜਦੇਦਸਤਖਤਾਂਨੂੰਸਾਬਤਨਹੀਂਕੀਤਾ।ਪਰਇਹ, ਸਾਡੇਵਿਚਾਰਵਿੱਚ, ਅਭਿਯੋਗਦੇਮਾਮਲੇਨੂੰਬਾਹਰਸੁੱਟਣਲਈਕਾਫੀਨਹੀਂਹੋਵੇਗਾ।ਅਭਿਯੋਗਨੂੰਬਿਨਾਂਕਿਸੇਵਾਜਬਸ਼ੱਕਤੋਂਪਰੇਆਪਣਾਮਾਮਲਾਸਾਬਤਕਰਨਾਹੈਤਾਂਜੋਦੋਸ਼ਨੂੰਘਰਲਿਆਂਦਾਜਾਸਕੇ।ਇਸਮਕਸਦਲਈਸਬੂਤਦੋਸ਼ੀਦਾਸਵੀਕਾਰਵੀਹੋਸਕਦਾਹੈ।ਇੱਥੇਮੌਜੂਦਾਮਾਮਲੇਵਿੱਚ, ਅਭਿਯੋਗਨੇਸਬੂਤਕੀਤੇਕਿਹੇਮਰਾਜਦੇਨਾਮਹੇਠਫਰਮਸੋਧਿਆਗਿਆਰਿਟਰਨਦਾਖਲਕੀਤਾਪੇਸ਼ਦੋਸ਼ੀਵੱਲੋਂਗਿਆਸੀਅਤੇਇਸਆਧਾਰਅਥਾਰਟੀਦੁਆਰਾਕੀਤਾਗਿਆਸੀ।ਹੋਰਸਬੂਤਵੀਹਨਜੋਉੱਤੇਮੁਲਾਂਕਣਮੁਲਾਂਕਣਦਿਖਾਉਂਦੇਹਨਕਿਮੁਲਾਂਕਣਅਥਾਰਟੀਦੇਆਦੇਸ਼ਤੋਂਦੁੱਖੀਹੋਕੇ, ਦੋਸ਼ੀਹੇਮਰਾਜਦੇਦਸਤਖਤਹੇਠਅਪੀਲੀਅਥਾਰਟੀਅੱਗੇਅਪੀਲਦਾਇਰਕੀਤੀਗਈਸੀ, ਜਿਸਨੂੰਖਾਰਜਕੀਤਾਗਿਆਅਤੇਜੁਰਮਾਨਾਅਦਾਕੀਤਾਗਿਆ।ਕਿਸੇਵੀਸਮੇਂਦੋਸ਼ੀਹੇਮਰਾਜਨੇਇਹਐਤਰਾਜ਼ਨਹੀਂਕੀਤਾਕਿਰਿਟਰਨਉਸਦੇਦਸਤਖਤਨਾਲਨਹੀਂਸੀਅਤੇਉਸਵੱਲੋਂਦਾਖਲਨਹੀਂਕੀਤਾਗਿਆਸੀ।ਇਹਸਪੱਸ਼ਟਹੈਕਿਸਵੀਕਾਰਬਣਾਉਣਵਾਲੇਖਿਲਾਫਸਭਤੋਂਵਧੀਆਸਬੂਤਹੈਅਤੇਇਸਨੂੰਪਾਰਟੀਦੇਵਿਵਹਾਰਤੋਂਸਮਝਿਆਜਾਸਕਦਾਹੈ।ਵਿਵਹਾਰਦੁਆਰਾਸੁਝਾਇਆਗਿਆਸਵੀਕਾਰਬਣਾਉਣਵਾਲੇਖਿਲਾਫਮਜ਼ਬੂਤਸਬੂਤਹੈਪਰਉਹਇਸਨੂੰਸਾਬਤਕਰਨਦੀਆਜ਼ਾਦੀਰੱਖਦਾਹੈਕਿਅਜਿਹਾਸਵੀਕਾਰਗਲਤਜਾਂਝੂਠਾਸੀ।ਕਿਸੇਵੀਸਮੇਂਕੋਈਵਿਵਾਦਨਾਚੁੱਕਣਅਤੇਜੁਰਮਾਨਾਅਦਾਕਰਨਦੁਆਰਾਦੋਸ਼ੀਹੇਮਰਾਜਦੇਵਿਵਹਾਰਨੂੰਸਾਬਤਕਰਕੇ, ਅਭਿਯੋਗਨੇਉਸਦੇਰਿਟਰਨਦਾਖਲਕਰਨਅਤੇਦਸਤਖਤਕਰਨਦਾਸਵੀਕਾਰਸਾਬਤਕੀਤਾਹੈ।ਇੱਕਵਾਰਅਭਿਯੋਗਨੇਇਹਸਾਬਤਕਰਦਿੱਤਾ, ਤਾਂਦੋਸ਼ੀਹੇਮਰਾਜਲਈਇਹਦਿਖਾਉਣਾਜ਼ਰੂਰੀਸੀਕਿਉਸਨੇਰਿਟਰਨਤੇਦਸਤਖਤਨਹੀਂਕੀਤੇ।ਆਮਦਨਕਇਸ 'ਤੇਦਸਤਖਤਕਰਨਦੀਕੋਈਕਾਨੂੰਨੀਲੋੜਨਹੀਂਹੈਰਿਟਰਨਇਨਕਮਟੈਕਸਦੀਮੌਜੂਦਗੀਵਿੱਚਕੀਤੀਜਾਣੀਚਾਹੀਦੀਹੈਅਧਿਕਾਰ. ਸਬੂਤਕੁਝਵੀਮੁਲਜ਼ਮਾਂਵੱਲੋਂਵਜੋਂਨਹੀਂਲਿਆਂਦਾਗਿਆਵਾਪਸੀ 'ਤੇਹੇਮਰਾਜਦੇਦਸਤਖਤਉਸਦੇਸਨਅਤੇਜੁਰਮਾਨਾਗਲਤੀਨਾਲਅਦਾਕੀਤਾਗਿਆਨਹੀਂਸੀ. ਸਾਡਾਵਿਚਾਰਹੈਕਿਅਪੀਲੀਅਦਾਲਤਨੇਇਸ 'ਤੇਵਿਚਾਰਨਾਕਰਨਵਿੱਚਆਪਣੇਆਪਗਲਤਨੂੰਨਿਰਦੇਸ਼ ਦਿੱਤਾਸਹੀਪਰਿਪੇਖਵਿੱਚਸਬੂਤਅਤੇਦੋਸ਼ੀਨੂੰਬਰੀਕਰਨਾ, ਇਸਲਈਹਾਈਕੋਰਟਵੀਜੋਸਪੱਸ਼ਟਗਲਤੀਨੂੰਠੀਕਕਰਨਵਿੱਚਅਸਫਲਰਹੀਹੈ।ਇਹਉਹਨਾਂਦੇਨਿਰਣੇਨੂੰਅਸਥਿਰਬਣਾਉਂਦਾਹੈ. ਕੋਈਹੋਰਦ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਹੋਸਕਦਾਹੈਅਪੀਲਕਰਤਾਨੂੰਨੂੰਰਿਟਰਨਫਾਈਲਕਰਨਲਈਮਜਬੂਰਕਰਨਲਈਪ੍ੇਿਤਕਰੋਅਥਾਰਟੀਦੀਮੁਲਾਂਕਣਕਰਤਾਮੌਜੂਦਗੀਜੋਹਸਤਾਖਰਦੁਆਰਾਸਾਬਤਕੀਤਾਜਾਸਕੇਮੁਕੱਦਮੇਵਿੱਚਅਜਿਹੇਅਥਾਰਟੀਦੁਆਰਾਸਿੱਧੇਸਬੂਤ।ਇਹਤਾਂਇੱਕਮੁਸ਼ਕਲਦੀਅਗਵਾਈਕਰੇਗਾਐਕਟਦੇਤਹਿਤਸਥਿਤੀਬਾਰੇਵਿਚਾਰਨਹੀਂਕੀਤਾਗਿਆ। ਅਨੁਸਾਰ, ਇਹਅਪੀਲਮਨਜ਼ੂਰਕੀਤੀਗਈਹੈ, ਚੁਣੌਤੀਦਿੱਤੇਗਏਆਦੇਸ਼ਰੱਦਕਰਦਿੱਤੇਗਏਹਨਅਤੇਮੁੱਖਨਿਆਇਕਮੈਜਿਸਟ੍ਰੇਟਦੁਆਰਾਪਾਸਕੀਤੇਗਏਦੋਸ਼ਦੇਫੈਸਲੇਨੂੰਮੁੜਬਹਾਲਕੀਤਾਗਿਆਹੈ।ਹਾਲਾਂਕਿ, ਅਸੀਂਹਰਇਕਗਿਣਤੀ 'ਤੇਇਕਸਾਲਤੋਂਛੇਮਹੀਨੇਤੱਕਸਜ਼ਾਨੂੰਘਟਾਦਿੰਦੇਹਾਂਅਤੇਉਹਨਾਂਨੂੰਇਕੱਠੇਚਲਾਉਣਲਈਕਿਹਾਗਿਆਹੈ। ਡੀ.ਜੀ. ਅਪੀਲਮਨਜ਼ੂਰ। Case: INCOME TAX OFFICER, JIND versus MIS. MANGAT RAM NORATA RAM NARWANA & ANR. [[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1137] (2011) एस0एस0 , केककमागमाककश्रीखींडूजाप्रत्मथीगणववद्वानअधधवक्ताद्वायाअनुयोधअभबमुक्तकाअभबमोजनककमेजानेकीअभबमोजनसेकोण्स्थनतभेंसम्फण्न्धतसभस्तअन्तननसदहततथ्मोकयनेकाबायअभबमोजनऩयहोताहैऔयअभबमोजनकोहीमहकयनाहोताहैककप्रभाणणतप्रभाणणतऐसाकामसककमागमाहैकायणवहकाबागीदायहैऔयअभबमुक्तद्वायाण्जनकेदाण्डडकप्रावधानोक्मोककअभबमोजनऩऺमहनहीककमागमाहैककहेभयाजकेहैद्वायाप्रभाणणतअभबमुक्तहस्ताऺयअतएवींवतसभानअऩीरभेंदोषभुण्क्तकेआदेशऩयहस्ताऺेऩककमेजानेकाकोईकायणनहीहै। हभनेऩऺकायोकेओयसेकथनोऩयभननककमा।प्रस्तुतध्मानऩूवसक महहैककऩी0-2 गोमर, ननधासयणककमागमाथा, नेअऩनेसत्मडब्रूदेशफन्धूण्जनकेद्वायाअण्न्तभकहीबीमहनहीकहाहैककरयटनसउनकीहेभयाजसाक्ष्मभेंउऩण्स्थनतभेंअभबमुक्तद्वायाहस्ताऺरयतअथवासत्मावऩतककमागमा।इसकेअनतरयक्तबीसाऺीगणमथासतीशकुभाय (ऩी0डब्र-1) जे0के0 साहनी (ऩी0डब्रू-3) वसतीशरथूया (ऩी0डब्रू-4) द्वायाहेभयाजकेहस्ताऺयोकोप्रभाणणतनहीककमागमाहै।हभायीयाममहअभबमोजनकेकेसकोखारयजकयनेकेभरएनहीहै।ऩयन्तुभेंतथ्मऩमासप्तअभबमोजनकोसदेहसेऩयेमहकयनाहोताहैककआयोवऩतदोषननसींदेहप्रभाणणतअभबमुक्तद्वायाकारयतककमागमाहै।इससम्फन्धभेंअभबमुक्तकीसींस्वीकृनतबीहोसकतीहै।वतसभानप्रकयणभेंअभबमोजनमहकयनेकेभरएददमागमाहैककपदसरयटनसद्वायाप्रभाणणतसाक्ष्मद्वायाऩुनयीक्षऺतहेभयाजकेनाभसेदाणखरककमागमाथाऔयउसकेआधायऩयननधासयणअधधकायीअभबमुक्तद्वायाननधासयणककमागमाहै।इसफातकोप्रदभशसतकयनेकेभरएसाक्ष्महैककननधासयणअधधकायीकेआदेशसेहोकयअऩीरीमअधधकायीकेसभऺहेभयाजकेसेअऩीरकीगमीजोऺुब्धअभबमुक्तहस्ताऺयोसींण्स्थतननयस्तहुईऔयअथसदडडकाबुगतानककमागमा।ककसीबीस्तयऩयअभबमुक्तहेभयाजद्वायामहआऩविनहीकीगमीककरयटनसउसकेनहीहैतथाउसकेदाणखरनहीककमागमाथा।महद्वायाहस्ताऺरयतद्वायाहैकककयनेवारेकेसवोिभहैऔयमहऩऺकायकेसुस्थावऩतसींस्वीकृनतववरूद्वसींस्वीकृनतसाक्ष्मआचयणसेबीदेखाजासकताहै।आचयणननदहतकेद्वायासींस्वीकृनतसम्फण्न्धतव्मण्क्तववरूद्वप्रफरसाक्ष्महैऩयन्तुवहव्मण्क्तइसफातकोप्रभाणणतकयनेकेभरएस्वतींत्रहैककसींस्वीकृनतगरतीसेकीगमीथीअथवाअसत्मथी।अभबमुक्तहेभयाजकेइसआचयणककउसकेककसीबीस्तयऩयइसफातऩयवववादनहीककमाऔयअथसदडडकाबुगतानककमा, अभबमेाजनद्वायामहप्रभाणणतककमागमाककउसनेरयटनसहस्ताऺरयतकयदाणखरककमा।मददएकफायअभबमोजनद्वायाइसफातकोप्रभाणणतकयददमागमातफअभबमुक्तहेभयाजकोईमहददखानाथाककउसकेद्वायारयटनसहस्ताऺरयतनहीककमागमा।इसफातकीकोईवैधाननकआवश्मकतानहीहैककरयटनसकोआमकयअधधकायीकेसाभनेहस्ताऺरयतककमाजानाचादहए।हेभयाजकहीबीमहनहीरामागमाककरयटनसऩयअभबमुक्तद्वायाप्रस्तुतसाक्ष्मभेंहस्ताऺयउसकेनहीहैअथवाअथसदडडकाबुगतानगरतीसेकयददमागमा।हभइसभतकेहैककअऩीरीमन्मामारमनेसाक्ष्मकासहीप्रकायसेववश्रेषणनहीककमाहैऔयइसकायणअऩीरीमन्मामारमद्वाया याजएडवोकेटकुभायगुु्प्ता अभबमुक्तकोदोषभुक्तकयनेभेंगरतीकीगमीहै।इसीप्रकायउच्चन्मामारमबीइसत्रुदटकोठीकनहीकयऩामीहै।इनऩरयण्स्थनतमोभेंउनकेननणसमण्स्थययहनेमोग्मनहीहै।इससम्फन्धभींेमददकोईअन्मभतभरमाजाताहैतफवहअऩीरान्टकोइसफातकेफाध्मकयेगाककवहननधासरयनतकोमहफाध्मकयेंककवहरयटनसऩयउसकेसाभनेककउनकोअधधकायीहस्ताऺयकयेंण्जससेहस्ताऺयोसम्फण्न्धतद्वायाववचायणकेदौयानप्रत्मऺसाक्ष्मसेप्रभाणणतककमाजासकें।इससेएककदठनऩरयण्स्थनतउत्ऩन्नहोगीअधधननमभनहीहै।ण्जसकाप्रावधानभें वतसभानअऩरीकीजातीहै, ननणसमउऩयेाक्तऩरयण्स्थनतमोभेंस्वीकायआरोच्मननयस्तककमेजातेहैऔयदडडाधधकायीऩारयतकाआदेशफहारककमाजाताहैभुख्मन्मानमकद्वायादोषभसद्वीहभदडडकोघटाकयगणनाऩयएकवषससे 6 भाहकयतेहैऔयदडडसाथसाथऩयन्तुप्रत्मेकचरेंगे। अऩीरकीजातीहै।स्वीकाय याजएडवोकेटकुभायगुु्प्ता Case: INCOME TAX OFFICER, JIND versus MIS. MANGAT RAM NORATA RAM NARWANA & ANR. [[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1137] (2011) "Irrespective of the above decision as regards grant of sanction and the requirement for hearing the accused, fact remains that there was insufficient proof that the return had been signed/verified by Hem Raj. Statement of Oesh Sandhu Goyal (PW 2), the officer who made the final assessment, was to the effect that the return had not been signed/verified in his presence. Furthermore, other witnesses namely Satish Kumar, UOC (PW1), J.K.Sahni (PW 3) and Satish Luthra (PW 4) had not proved Hem Raj's signatures. The prosecution case was that the return had been revised and submitted through a counsel and returns were never signed by the partners in the presence of the Income tax Officer. Therefore, th~ learned Additional Sessions Judge held that it had not been proved that the return had been signed/verified by Hem Raj as the counsel who had filed the return had not been examined and there was no evidence that it was Hem Raj who had signed the return even though the name Hem Raj appeared on the return. The prosecution could have examined a hand E F G INCOME TAX OFFICER, JIND v. MANGAT RAM NORATA RAM NARWANA & ANR. 1141 writing expert but failed to do so. For all these reasons the learned appellate court accepted the appeal and acquittal the respondents. The appellate court had taken a plausible view. It was neither perverse nor illegal. No ground exists t? interfere with the decision ofthe appellate court". A B C Mr. Mukui Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the accused invited the order of the Income Tax Authority on the return so filed and aggrieved by the order of Income Tax Officer preferred appeal. According to him after the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority, the accused paid the penalty and these facts having been proved by the evidence laid by the prosecution it was for the accused to disprove that the signature on the income tax · return was not his. · Mr.S.S.Khanduja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of D respondent submits that in the case of prosecution of an accused the onus is always on the prosecution to prove all the ingredients to bring home the act within the mischief of penal provision and the prosecution having not proved that the signatures are of accused Hem Raj, the order of acquittal does not call for interference by this Court in the present appeal. E We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced. True it is that PW 2 Desh Sandhu Goyal, who made the final assessment did not state in his evidence that the return was signed or verified by the accused Hem Raj in his presence. Further the witnesses; namely Satish Kumar (PW1), J.K.Sahni (PW 3) and Satish Luthra (PW 4) have not proved the signatures of Hem Raj. But this, in our opinion would not be sufficient to throw out the case of the prosecution. lhe prosecution undoubtedly is to prove its case beyond al.I reasonable doubt to bring home the charge. The evidence for that purpose could be admission of the accused also. H e r e in the present case, prosecution had led evidence to prove that F G H Case: INCOME TAX OFFICER, JIND versus MIS. MANGAT RAM NORATA RAM NARWANA & ANR. [[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1137] (2011) ਅਨੁਸਾਰ, ਇਹਅਪੀਲਮਨਜ਼ੂਰਕੀਤੀਗਈਹੈ, ਚੁਣੌਤੀਦਿੱਤੇਗਏਆਦੇਸ਼ਰੱਦਕਰਦਿੱਤੇਗਏਹਨਅਤੇਮੁੱਖਨਿਆਇਕਮੈਜਿਸਟ੍ਰੇਟਦੁਆਰਾਪਾਸਕੀਤੇਗਏਦੋਸ਼ਦੇਫੈਸਲੇਨੂੰਮੁੜਬਹਾਲਕੀਤਾਗਿਆਹੈ।ਹਾਲਾਂਕਿ, ਅਸੀਂਹਰਇਕਗਿਣਤੀ 'ਤੇਇਕਸਾਲਤੋਂਛੇਮਹੀਨੇਤੱਕਸਜ਼ਾਨੂੰਘਟਾਦਿੰਦੇਹਾਂਅਤੇਉਹਨਾਂਨੂੰਇਕੱਠੇਚਲਾਉਣਲਈਕਿਹਾਗਿਆਹੈ। ਡੀ.ਜੀ. ਅਪੀਲਮਨਜ਼ੂਰ। ਡਿਸਕਲੇਮਰਸਥਾਨਕਵਿੱਚਅਨੁਵਾਦਕੀਤਾਗਿਆਨਿਆਕੇਵਲਲਈਦੀਭਾਸ਼ਾਨਿਰਣਾਂਮੁਕੱਦਮੇਬਾਜ਼ਾਂਉਹਨਾਂਆਪਣੀਵਿੱਚਸਮਝਣਤੱਕਹੀਸੀਮਤਹੈਅਤੇਇਸਦਾਕਿਸੇਹੋਰਲਈਇਸਤੇਮਾਲਕੀਤਾਜਾਭਾਸ਼ਾਉਦੇਸ਼ਨਹੀਂਸਕਦਾ।ਸਾਰੇਵਿਹਾਰਕਅਤੇਅਧਿਕਾਰਤਲਈਨਿਆਂਨਿਰਣੇਦਾਸੰਸਕਰਣਹੋਵੇਗਾਅਤੇਮੰਤਵਾਂਅੰਗਰੇਜ਼ੀਪ੍ਰਮਾਣਿਕਅਮਲਲਾਗੂਕਰਨਲਈਇਸਨੂੰਤਰਜੀਹਦਿੱਤੀਜਾਵੇਗੀ। Vasu GuptaAdvocate Case: INCOME TAX OFFICER, JIND versus MIS. MANGAT RAM NORATA RAM NARWANA & ANR. [[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1137] (2011) F G H A revised return was filed by the firm under the name of accused Hem Raj and on that basis assessment was made by the assessing authority. There is further evidence to show that aggrieved by the order of asssesslng authority, appeal was preferred before the appellate authority under the signature of B the accused Hem Raj, which was dismissed and the penalty was paid. At no point of time accused Hem Raj made any objection that the return did not bear his signature and was not filed by him. It is trite that admission is best evidence against the maker and it can be inferred from the conduct of the party. c Admission implied by conduct is strong evidence against the maker but he is at liberty to prove that such admission was mistaken or untrue. By proving conduct of the accilsed Hem Raj in not raising any dispute at any point of time and paying the . penalty, the prosecution has proved his admission of filing and signing the return. Once the prosecution has proved that, it was 0 for the accused Hem Raj to demonstrate that he did not sign the return. There is no statutory requirement that signature on the return has to be made in presence of the Income-tax authoritY. Nothing has been brought in evidence by the accused Hem Raj that signature did not belong to him on the return and E the penalty was paid mistakenly. We are of the opinion that the appellate court misdirected itself in not considering the evidence in right perspective and acquitting the accused, so also the High Court which failed to correct the apparent error. This render their judgments unsustainable. Any other view may F induce the appellant to compel the assessee to file return in the presence of the authority so that the signature is proved by direct evidence by such authority in trial. This will lead to a difficult situation not contemplated under the Act. G Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the judgment of conviction passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is restored. However, we reduce the substantive sentence from one year to six months on each count and they are directed to run concurrently. H D.G. Appeal allowed.